Of all the terror groups that pose an internal threat to the U.S.,
the threat from the Iran-backed Hezbollah may be the most pressing.
Today House Homeland Security Committee chief Peter King is holding a
hearing on the organization’s U.S.-based network. According to his
findings, Hezbollah is thought to have thousands of sympathetic
donors and hundreds of operatives across the country – many of them
with military training:

Pinning down a reliable estimate of the number of Hezbollah
operatives who now reside inside the U.S. is difficult because of
their operational security expertise. But some officials estimate
that, based on cases uncovered since 9/11, there are likely several
thousand sympathetic donors, while operatives probably number in the
hundreds. …

Many defendants were known or suspected of having military training
or direct combat experience against Israeli forces. Some were quietly
convicted of fraud and deported as criminal aliens without their
Hezbollah background being publicly disclosed by prosecutors, the
Majority’s Investigative Staff has learned

King’s hearing will no doubt be used as fodder by Iran’s sympathizers
in America, who want to discourage Israel from striking the Iranian
nuclear program. The New York Times has been playing up how an
Israeli attack on Iran’s facilities may spark a violent backlash
against the U.S. And there’s no denying that an Israeli strike could
ensnare the U.S. in some form or another.

But there are greater domestic threats than a radical anti-American
regime with ties to terror operatives in the U.S. For example: a
radical anti-American regime with ties to terror operatives in the
U.S. that also has nuclear weapons.

King said today that his findings shouldn’t be used to discourage an
Israeli strike:

“There’s no doubt that if Israel does attack Iran, this is not going
to be easy, it’s not going to be surgical, and again the U.S. could
find itself implicated or involved in it,” said King on
CNN’s “Starting Point.”

“I don’t think we can rule out an Israeli attack. I think we need to
keep all the pressure out there. Sometimes the president has had
mixed signals — I think in recent weeks he’s gotten more consistent
to Iran. But again, the fact that there can be complications are not
a reason why Israel shouldn’t do it or we shouldn’t do it,” he added.

Exactly. This is why the argument from the appease-Iran crowd is so
counter-intuitive. If there’s broad concern about the threat of
Hezbollah operatives in the U.S. now, why would we expect them to be
less of a threat if they were backed by mullahs with nukes? Or are we
just supposed to that pray Israel and our other allies don’t do
anything that might offend the regime once it obtains nuclear
weapons, lest its Hezbollah allies retaliate against us domestically?